New characters are a hard sell. DC probably didn't want to make a political statement with a character destined to join so many characters created in the 90s in total obscurity.

Sadly, modern comics aren't written for what would be a long journey of personal discovery. Private lives get shufffled to the background such that it's rare to find a releationship that really feels developed rather than characters started dating between issues. I'd like to see more, but try and get writers and fans to accept a relationship based story, or drop siz months of comics covering an afternoon for the characters.

Bob, as always watching your videos is an honour and something I look forward to at the end of the day. As always you've reminded me that there are smart, open-minded individuals who are not afraid to voice their opinion and for that I thank you :)

RatRace123:I think dropping Allen Scott's age by a couple decades is a far more drastic change than his sexual preferences.

I mean, hell in comics Scott was dealing with his gay son. If they had kept that aspect of continuity, imagine how much more poignant the outing of Allen Scott would be if it was revealed that he was actually gay too, and his problems with his son were maybe stemming from his own self loathing on the subject.

But I guess it's kind of a moot point since Allen Scott isn't "The" Green Lantern that everyone knows about, so for DC it's a relatively safe publicity stunt.

That...damn.

THAT would have been something interesting and noteworthy.Something current, and relevant, like the X-men USED to be.

If I may interject on something a little non-sequitur... Am I the only one who really hates the term "LGBT"? I mean if you spell it out it sounds atrocious and cumbersome ("algae-beaty"), and if you try to physically pronounce it you sound like a drooling invalid. Just a pet peeve...

Whenever you try and pop in these attempts at sounding like you're sincerely behind the idea of everything being equal...

You just come off sounding guilty of prejudice. It's part of the problem with changing heroes genders/sexualities/races/etc. When you alter something because you think a group of people you can't relate to (usually of a different sex/gender/race) dislike the way it is, you're simply trying to appease your white guilt.

These communities don't neccesarily want us to change established things to include them. As that would just perpetuate the cycle of inequality (you don't restore balance by turning every superhero black for instance.)

They want genuine attempts at new icons that are more deverse. Not one dimensional stereotypes like we have now.

I really think for all the good Bob tries to do with these equality pieces in comics/games/movies, his position will never come off right. Truth is, what would he know about inequality or prejudice?

RatRace123:I think dropping Allen Scott's age by a couple decades is a far more drastic change than his sexual preferences.

I mean, hell in comics Scott was dealing with his gay son. If they had kept that aspect of continuity, imagine how much more poignant the outing of Allen Scott would be if it was revealed that he was actually gay too, and his problems with his son were maybe stemming from his own self loathing on the subject.

But I guess it's kind of a moot point since Allen Scott isn't "The" Green Lantern that everyone knows about, so for DC it's a relatively safe publicity stunt.

Dammit, you said what I was going to say. I feel that an older Allen Scott having that level of character development would make for an excellent story.

Part of me wonders if this was DC's response to Marvel's recent attempt to show acceptance for homosexuality. There is often a lot of imitation from one studio when the other does something. This sort of one up man-ship makes me wonder how much of this was a legitimate decision.

Okay, cool so the Green Lantern is gay. Does it really matter? No. Unless they start churning out comics where his homosexuality is important to the story, I don't see how this change is really going to be important.

It does make sense though that a male character had to be the choice rather than a female character. Personally though the schtick that every man is obsessed with lesbians is rather absurd in my opinion.

To people that aren't for homosexuality I offer you this token of advice: Are you really getting upset over a fictional character in a fictional universe? (A slightly obscure version of a character in a slightly obscure universe even?) If you aren't for homosexuality at least console yourself that it wasn't a more recent and iconic hero.

And yes we all get that Aquaman would have been an insult to the LGBT community.

I will say this though, the amount of attention that homosexuality has been getting in media though is a bit off-putting. Yes we understand that it is a growing concern and issue that needs to be addressed but there is no reason that it needs to be shoved into every facet of media and life. Especially in places where sexuality was never necessary to begin with.

I've been an Allen Scott fan ever sense the JSA reboot a while back (right before Kingdom Come I think). While the age drop bothers I'm glad they are doing something with his character. In Earth-2 he's pretty much the classic super hero, and assuming the age drop was planned all along he would of been terribly uninteresting as a character.

Fwee:Have I lost my mind, or wasn't there a gay Green Lantern already?Guy Gardener, looking at you buddy.

RatRace123:I mean, hell in comics Scott was dealing with his gay son. If they had kept that aspect of continuity, imagine how much more poignant the outing of Allen Scott would be if it was revealed that he was actually gay too, and his problems with his son were maybe stemming from his own self loathing on the subject.

But I guess it's kind of a moot point since Allen Scott isn't "The" Green Lantern that everyone knows about, so for DC it's a relatively safe publicity stunt.

I really like this idea. I think it would hit home for a lot of people in the LGBT community.

OT: I'm kind've ambivalent about the whole thing. Yeah, they chose a less popular character, but I'm okay with baby steps. As Bob said "they're steps in the right direction". Being gay shouldn't be the character's sole defining trait, so it really doesn't matter who you make gay, they'll be the same dude who also just happens to like other dudes.

Sovereignty:Whenever you try and pop in these attempts at sounding like you're sincerely behind the idea of everything being equal...

You just come off sounding guilty of prejudice. It's part of the problem with changing heroes genders/sexualities/races/etc. When you alter something because you think a group of people you can't relate to (usually of a different sex/gender/race) dislike the way it is, you're simply trying to appease your white guilt.

These communities don't neccesarily want us to change established things to include them. As that would just perpetuate the cycle of inequality (you don't restore balance by turning every superhero black for instance.)

They want genuine attempts at new icons that are more deverse. Not one dimensional stereotypes like we have now.

I really think for all the good Bob tries to do with these equality pieces in comics/games/movies, his position will never come off right. Truth is, what would he know about inequality or prejudice?

I don't understand your train of logic. Under that idea, no white person can support equality because it's going to be brushed off as "guilt" on the sole basis of his or her race. Is that not inequal or prejudiced in itself?

Also, Alan Scott is not a one-dimensional stereotype. From what I've seen, it looks like they did a pretty respectful job, and there are plenty of minorities in comics that are not stereotypes. I'm unsure what you're referring to specifically.

Does this mean we'll be seeing more Luka Magnotta or Andrew-Cunanan style supervillains, preferably rejected lovers of this particular Green Lantern?

Because that would be FABULOUS!

(and actually true to gay male life experience.)

In any case, bringing gay characters into comic books is like bringing them to a city-the art gets better, but the cost of everything will go up as the kids leave or get banned by their parents from participation and the black people get priced out. Eventually, all that's left are hipsters like Bob, still fighting the last war. Art will imitate life.

You know I always found it funny when people used the Planeteers to represent forced diversity. Honestly they were one of the few multiracial groups that made sense to me. Gaea was the spirit of the world and chose children from all across the world to represent her. They all had different backgrounds which would allow them greater potential to negotiate and reason with the humans in the countries they traveled to. Yeah it would have been weird if they were all hanging out at the juice bar in Angel Grove, but they all met for the first time when they met Gaea.

This move would probably be a lot more positive if it wasn't a largely unknown character (see also Mr Terrific) and the character shared a name with another, better known hero who'd recently had a film adaptation that Bob described as "Steel bad." So there was already a bad smell hanging around the name and now the character is gay? Well, whoop-dee-skip.

*sigh*

On the one hand, I totally sympathize with those who do enjoy super heroes but also feel excluded a bit based on arbitrary distinctions, like ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.

But on the other hand, it seems more like the publishers are just throwing a bone in converting their less popular characters. Were it me, I don't think I would be too happy about it. Who really gives a crap about Mr Terrific, much less the Earth-2 Green Lantern? Old people, maybe, since they were both from the 40's. I would rather see new, interesting, original characters made for the various so-called minorities groups. Then again, DC Comics almost made the Black Bomber their first black super hero. Google it with the word "Hembeck" because you will not believe me if I tell you about it here. Not all original characters are that embarrassing or clueless. The problem with new characters is that new characters don't always catch on. But then if it's a new version of a largely forgotten character or an alternate version of a character that just had their movie bomb at the box office, what's the difference?

Lizardon:Something I feel needs to be mentioned is why Alan Scott was chosen. Some people think DC decided that having a gay superhero would be a great publicity stunt and then proceeded to go through their line up and choose an appropriate hero.

Well before the reboot, Alan Scott had a super hero son, Obsidian, who was gay. With the reboot making him younger, that son was not going to exist any more. The writer thought it would be a shame to lose a positive gay character and so proposed making Alan Scott gay, and it went from there.

But wasn't there a big plotline revolving around Scott (who was conservative) having to come to terms with his son being gay? That's the funny thing. That would actually be A CULTURALLY RELEVANT STORY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY IN SOCIETY. You know, the type of story where the authors actually have the balls to confront an issue confronting a certain demographic. And then they do away with this storyline and just have a nonchalantly gay character?

Nate Corran:My thought was pretty much "Good for them, now why are they being so righteous about it?" Why not make it happen and not make a big deal about it? Because if they didn't they wouldn't get press out of it. Its not like people are going to go out and buy it because he is gay. Make a genuinely good character and it doesn't matter if they're black, white, gay, straight, man, woman, alien. A good character is a good character.Also, WHY THE F*CK ARE YOU BRINGING BACK THE EARTH 2 BULL SHITE???*adjusts tie*It just seems foolish.

That's actually kinda what I was asking. What's the point of making it earth 2? I know a lot of the events that took place over the decades still apparently happened, but that doesn't mean they're gonna re-do Crisis on Infinite Earths. Why not just make it the same as the other characters' universe?

To say the least, the reboot feels more like it's going to get un-done soon, like somehow this is another-another Earth, Earth 2 is really Earth 2.00001 but they rounded the number, or we'll get some kind of reverse Flashpoint.

I would actually like to hear Bob's opinion on why the New 52 is "underwhelming" I've only been reading the Green and Red lantern single issues lately, everything I've found out about the New 52 just makes me want to not touch any of the rest (well the main ones anyways, like JLA and JSA and all the main super heroes we know) I mean I guess I'd touch the lesser known ones like Frankenstein Agent of SHADE AND JLA Dark JUST because of John Constantine (although is the John in JLA Dark the Hellblazer John or the original DC 1980s John?)

I hope someone reads this and gives me an answer. Also if anyone could recommend some of the New 52 that'd be great because like I've said, I've only been reading Green Lantern stuff and Red Lantern also I heard The Flash had a hand in merging, WildStorm, Vertigo, and the DC universes together, in what comic book arc did that happen? I really need to catch up, still haven't read Flashpoint.

EDIT: Also for on topic, I'm glad it's NOT the Allen Scott I know and love who's gay (not that there's anything wrong with it but I love the kick ass old man version)

I think MovieBob has given us another reason as to why comic books are of little cultural relevance.

There are a couple ways to look at this:

1) The General Impact View: the good thing about it is that it portrays a (relatively) iconic character as gay, which promotes a positive, inclusive image that will make homosexual people feel less like a social outlier and more like an accepted member of society.

Sure, I get it. The problem is that this is probably a pretty weak general impact. The impact could have been much larger if DC were willing to step up to the plate and write something truly controversial. Instead they chose to play it safe and add a token gay character without directly confronting the issues that face gay people in modern society. This brings me to #2...

2) The Artistic View: when you consider it from the motivations of DC it just seems like a really shallow attempt to appease certain demographics and receive praise. While I can see one appeal for treating homosexuality like it's no big deal, the problem with this is that it kind of is. There is still a huge cultural and political divide over what rights gay people should have, as well as the nature of romantic and family relationships. If DC was really courageous they would tackle these issues head on with stories like the one about the original Scott having to accept his son.

This ties into the very nature of comics as an artistic medium. The greatest forms of art and literature don't just follow cultural trends with marketing ploys; they lead and help create new cultural trends. The only way to do this is to be original and to not be afraid to shock people. The way to do this isn't to have token gay characters or have a gay wedding: it's to actually generate a discussion between the two sides of the issues and then point to a solution.

Appeasing a primarily liberal audience doesn't do anything. In fact, it's indicative of the polarization that is destroying our country (America). The proliferation of partisan media outlets is the foremost cause of this degeneration. When each side is only exposed to media sources that espouse their own values while caricaturing the other side, it's no wonder that we've become ever more polarized.

If DC was truly bold they would create a character that had anti-gay biases but that was still human and relatable. Someone's whose biases are based in deeply held religious or cultural beliefs. Someone who could represent the portion of society that opposes homosexuality without becoming a straw-man. Maybe then this character could have a sincere conflict between his/her deeply held traditional values and the need to recognize the rights of his gay counterparts. Perhaps in the end the character realizes that the broader societal context of the situation demands that he/she recognize and accept his/her gay counterparts, even though this conflicts with his/her religious/cultural convictions.

The fact that DC doesn't seem willing to engage in this kind of story writing shows an immaturity on their part. What made The Watchmen so good, imo, is that it had an at least somewhat morally ambiguous ending. Rorschach's position was (once again imho) supposed to be somewhat identifiable. You had a genuine conflict between deontological and utilitarian ethics. I think it was left up to the reader who to side with. Handing down mores to an audience that likely already agrees with you isn't going to raise what you're doing above the level of mere entertainment.

the antithesis:This move would probably be a lot more positive if it wasn't a largely unknown character (see also Mr Terrific) and the character shared a name with another, better known hero who'd recently had a film adaptation that Bob described as "Steel bad." So there was already a bad smell hanging around the name and now the character is gay? Well, whoop-dee-skip.

On the contrary, "If your movies suck, we will totally make your character canonically gay!" is a great threat to hang over the heads of Hollywood comic book movie makers.

On the one hand, I totally sympathize with those who do enjoy super heroes but also feel excluded a bit based on arbitrary distinctions, like ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.

Emboldened word makes sentence not make sense. It's like saying that the playstyle difference between a Wizard and Barbarian in D3 is 'arbitrary', like most wizards are going around wearing plate armor and doing short-range damage instead of hanging back and letting tougher guys tank. The majority of people are going to use the abilities that they're already good at innately; battle mages and throwbarians are for bored one percenters on their one percent runs.

Nate Corran:My thought was pretty much "Good for them, now why are they being so righteous about it?" Why not make it happen and not make a big deal about it? Because if they didn't they wouldn't get press out of it. Its not like people are going to go out and buy it because he is gay. Make a genuinely good character and it doesn't matter if they're black, white, gay, straight, man, woman, alien. A good character is a good character.Also, WHY THE F*CK ARE YOU BRINGING BACK THE EARTH 2 BULL SHITE???*adjusts tie*It just seems foolish.

I'm pretty sure if they hadn't announced it beforehand, fans would have freaked out and they would have been sued from every direction for trying to brainwash children by hiding subliminal messages in their comics.

Sovereignty:Whenever you try and pop in these attempts at sounding like you're sincerely behind the idea of everything being equal...

You just come off sounding guilty of prejudice. It's part of the problem with changing heroes genders/sexualities/races/etc. When you alter something because you think a group of people you can't relate to (usually of a different sex/gender/race) dislike the way it is, you're simply trying to appease your white guilt.

These communities don't neccesarily want us to change established things to include them. As that would just perpetuate the cycle of inequality (you don't restore balance by turning every superhero black for instance.)

They want genuine attempts at new icons that are more deverse. Not one dimensional stereotypes like we have now.

I really think for all the good Bob tries to do with these equality pieces in comics/games/movies, his position will never come off right. Truth is, what would he know about inequality or prejudice?

I don't understand your train of logic. Under that idea, no white person can support equality because it's going to be brushed off as "guilt" on the sole basis of his or her race. Is that not inequal or prejudiced in itself?

Also, Alan Scott is not a one-dimensional stereotype. From what I've seen, it looks like they did a pretty respectful job, and there are plenty of minorities in comics that are not stereotypes. I'm unsure what you're referring to specifically.

Not sure I agree with/understand the OP's line of thought either. However, I will say that the argument that Bob gives at the very end about not having a problem with people "trying too hard to make up for lost time" does seem to suggest the whole white guilt thing, to me at least. It's kind of the same sentiment (albeit taken to a rather idiotic extreme) that makes someone claim that women should run society for the next 6000 years just to make up for lost time.

It's the same kind of general feeling behind more radical versions of affirmative action in which less qualified candidates are given a position due to their ethnic/cultural background/sexual orientation, etc. Giving academic/professional positions to less qualified people is 1) generally unfair to the more qualified people who worked hard to get where they were, 2) is a very imperfect way to make up for the results of inequalities at the level of primary education and upbringing (i.e., the real way to combat these inequalities is to stop them at the source with a better funded education system), and 3) two wrongs don't make a right.

I suppose one could argue that the more qualified candidates were only able to get their qualifications because of their position in society, and that these qualifications shouldn't really count. But while that may be true of some (e.g. the rich kids at Yale), I think that other factors such as ethnicity/sexual orientation don't influence success nearly as much as wealth, and that just because someone is white/male/etc. it doesn't mean that they didn't work their ass off to get to where they are.

The only time I feel it's alright to take a less qualified candidate is when there's substantial evidence to suggest that that candidate has more raw potential and would thus be a better investment in the long run (e.g. they score off the charts on an IQ test), or if the less qualified candidate can show material/quantifiable evidence that they were at a disadvantage (e.g. their family had such a low income that they had to spend much of their time working, which directly affected their ability to study, etc.). Unfortunately, most of it seems to be done for both ideological reasons and for bragging rights (e.g. UC Davis' faculty is more diverse than UCSB so UCSB hires a new faculty member for the sake of being more diverse, even though that faculty member specializes in something that overlaps with the work of existing members).

At any rate, I'm not going to beleaguer the point because it always seems self-serving for white/male/heterosexual people to argue that it's another form of prejudice or that society's supposed to be a meritocracy.

But I will say that Bob's comment does come off as a bit self-righteous/self-promoting, and that we should be suspicious of the "making up for lost time" arguments.

This NOTHING to do with Gay rights or meaningless affirmative action. It has everything to do with flagging sales and trying to gain attention by jumping on a bandwagon. If the bandwagon for this decade was putting furniture through your head, you could bet your ass that some random super hero would look like Chairface.

First, I'd like to point out that I know more gay men in comics than women. Second, X-Factor did make an established character gay, Rictor, so DC's not exacty the only person in this ball park.

Third, the thing that annoys me about this announcement is that they played it up as an important character was going to come out. Instead they make it a character that nobody gives two shits about in an alternate universe. The character was already going to come out, but he didn't deserve the press for it. This is nothing new.

Alright, so they made a gay green lantern, where's the Christian Superman to balance it out?

In all seriousness, every time the LGBWTH/E, one million in their mind moms, or other big political group lets their ego flare out, I think back to PETA and their shenanigans. There's no difference, just people too busy trying to control someone else. Nobody is really fighting for their rights here, just trying to enforce what they want on others.

Seriously, LGBs just want everyone to be what they want, OMM wants everyone to keep to tradition, there's nothing new here.

DC made a gay green lantern? Whoop de homo do, back to life people, buy it if you want to.